bound train from Yuma, Niland or some other point without returning to Los Angeles. Is Mrs. Witt with you? Do you wish to include a movie studio in your itinerary? How about having a sort of gathering of the clan, i. e. "open house" here in the office some afternoon while you are here, so the union boys can come in and meet you? DEAR NAT: I have received your letter of March 14th. Your present schedule of dates suits me far better than your original one, as it will enable me to cover more ground in my proposed trip north. Now what I would like to do would be to leave open whether you could come down on the Streamliner on the 24th as far as San Luis Obispo or whether you could leave San Francisco with me on the afternoon, say about 3 P. M. of the 12rd and drive south. If we could leave by 3 P. M., we could get down as far as the Monterey Peninsula, making it an easy trip on the 24th from Monterey to Los Angeles by way of San Simeon. The reason I may drive to San Francisco is that I have a case pending against the Bank of America and the officials have refused to come to Los Angeles in order that I may inspect the personnel records and it is necessary that either I or one of the staff go to San Francisco to finish up the investigation. I will explain to you when I see you why we are not calling on the San Francisco office to assist us in this matter. I am writing Mrs. Rosseter; asking her to make two reservations for you on the Streamliner, leaving San Francisco at 8:15 on the morning of the 24th. In the event that I come north, they can be cancelled, but if I find that I am unable to come to San Francisco by car, the reservations will stand and I can meet you in San Luis Obispo at 1:15 P. M., Thursday, March 24th. I am arranging for you and Mrs. Witt, accompanied by Mrs. Mouritsen and Mrs. Brooks, wives of two of our attorneys, to visit one of the studios on the afternoon of March 25th. That will give you the morning in the office with me and you can spend Saturday in the office meeting different people. If you are going to New Mexico, you will, of course, take the Southern Pacific, which means that we can, without any undue delay, on March 27th, Sunday, drive down through Imperial Valley and you can take your train at Yuma just as well as in San Francisco, thus giving you an opportunity to see this whitest of all white spots. If, however, you could spend a few additional days, the 28th and 29th, for example, with us in Los Angeles rather than leave on Sunday, I am sure it would be time well spent. I am very happy to learn that Mrs. Witt is with you and Mrs. Nylander and I will be very happy to extend to both of you a welcome to Southern California. TOWNE NYLANDER. Director. TN: MA. ce-20th Region. To: David J. Saposs, Chief Economist. From: William R. Walsh, Regional Attorney. DEAR DAVE: At last I have found you out! MAY 6, 1938. I read the current issue of Liberty. If you have not read it, I would suggest that you procure a copy of the same, arm yourself with it, walk right in to the Board members and demand a raise in wages-reason being that Senator Sturgiss of New Hampshire charges you with being the mastermind of the Labor Board. If this charge be true, certainly the Board should raise your wages. After having read this article, it has relieved me no end to know that you are the sinister influence behind all the terrible things that we do. With my kindest regards, I am, Sincerely yours, WRW: rel. 218054-41-vol. 24, pt. 237 WILLIAM R. WALSH, Regional Attorney. TWENTY-FIRST REGION MAY 28, 1938. To: National Labor Relations Board. From: Towne Nylander, Director, 21st Region. Attached hereto please find copy of a letter from the Arizona State Federation of Labor. Will you please give a curb-stone opinion on this, as I don't care to take the time necessary to investigate unless you believe that there is at least a remote possibility that we might take jurisdiction. TN: hf. TOWNE NYLANDER, Director. JUNE 1, 1938. To: Mr. Robert B. Watts, Acting General Counsel. Subject: Union Die Casting Company, Ltd., Case No. XXI-C-251. The above matter was the first "C" case which I tried, and I judge that by this time it is ready for review. I went back over the record, and it is not exactly the way I would present the matter today with my present knowledge. There is one matter I would like to explain, however, and that is the fact that almost at the outset of the hearing I asked for an amendment showing an 8 (2) violation. The reason for this was that prior to the hearing the Union could produce no witnesses or proof that the Company had dominated the organization of the company union, and further that the Union could not give me even the correct name of the company union. Accordingly, during a recess at the hearing, I was able to talk to a company union representative and felt assured from my conversation that I could prove domination through him. To my relief the Respondent's counsel and the company union representative stipulated that I could amend the complaint to provide for the 8 (2) charge. Thereupon I placed the company union representative on the stand and, according to the Intermediate Report, proved domination through them. I know that this is not a sound practice and that charges should always be investigated and substantiated prior to the hearing; but in this instance the Union, at least the most active members in it, had practically disappeared; and I had to rely upon cross-examination of adverse witnesses. There is much that I have learned since this first "C" case which I tried, but I am satisfied that even in this instance were the hearing reopened no further evidence could be obtained since I have recently reviewed the record and spoken to the Union representative. Trusting that this explanation may bring to light the reason for the steps taken during the hearing, I am, Sincerely yours, DS: rel. DAVID SOKOL, Attorney. AUGUST 30, 1938. To: William R. Walsh. From: Charles M. Brooks. Subject: Johns-Manville Products Corp., XXI-C-651 (R-727-R-728). I have already talked to you about my dissatisfaction with the way that this case panned out. The witnesses called by the Board, with very few exceptions, proved to be very weak. I was led to believe when I talked to them before the hearing that they would make good witnesses. It was not until near the end of the case that I came to the conclusion that the Board's witnesses were all afraid of the Trial Examiner. I do not desire to lodge any complaint against Mr. Smith, who acted as the Trial Examiner in this case, but I do feel that he unintentionally frightened my witnesses. There were several instances in the case when he, by his tone of voice and manner of speaking to the witnesses, left the impression that he was hostile toward the Union. I am sure that this was unintentional on his part. I must also admit that the Trial Examiner caused me to feel that I should rush through my cross examination, and consequently I am afraid that I was not as thorough in cross examination as I could have been had I not been working with that feeling of restraint. I am writing this memorandum not to give specific instances, but rather to have something in the file to show that I am not satisfied fully with the conduct of the hearing. If you desire, I can give specific instances, with citations to the record, of occurrences that caused me to reach the conclusions mentioned above. CMB : hf. Mr. FELIX COHEN, C. M. BROOKS. SEPTEMBER 22, 1938. Dept. of Interior, Solicitors Office, Washington, D. C. DEAR FELIX: Jerry and I certainly regretted that you and your wife did not have our address in Los Angeles but we do expect to see you some day. I have written to Miss Helen Greeley and told her of the dilemma in which I am with respect to getting signatures for the petition on the referendum inasmuch as the Guild has not met recently and I have been snowed under with Board work; so much so that I have been unable to get out and see the lawyers around town. Thus far I have only two signatures. I will endeavor at the forthcoming meeting of the Guild to get the members before they go into the meeting to sign the petition if possible. With my sincerest regards to you and your wife. To: Mr. Towne J. Nylander, Regional Director, 21st Region. I understand that the Labor Department has developed some information indicating that the airplane manufacturing companies and some private "vocational schools" have created a perplexing labor situation. If you have sources of information available, please advise me by letter on the following points: 1. If the airplane schools are subsidized by the companies; how many there are; how many students, etc. 2. Are students given short-term, low paid jobs as learners and then laid off when they become eligible for higher wages? 3. Whether, as reported, this has created a large surplus of airplane factory workers who are now jobless. Without too great inconvenience to you, I should appreciate whatever you can send me on the above points and, of course, any additional pertinent facts. (Written notation: Radin used to enlist pupils.) M. R. INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5/25/39. To: Towne Nylander, 21st Region. From: E S. Frankfurter. Subject: Material for Non-Partisan League. Upon the receipt of your memorandum of May 22, in reply to our telegram, we had the mailroom check up further on the material forwarded to us on May 18. The boy who opened the mail stated with certainty that he had seen no supplemental envelope addressed to the Non-Partisan League. But since the League advised me it had received the original material in your envelope, we believe that someone else in our mailroom, finding it, mailed the material, unless, of course, in a fit of aphasia or amnesia you dispatched it yourself or in a fit of kindness one of your staff members sent it for you. In any case the Non-Partisan League has it though, under the circumstances, it was not checked here as to the propriety of its contents. We assume it will be all right. 808 U. S. Post Office and Court House, Spring and Temple Streets, DEAR MR. NYLANDER: One of our representatives from California who is planning to testify on the Senate NLRA hearings has asked us to assist him in compiling material for his statement. He is particularly interested in getting summaries of two or three outstanding cases which he could use as illustrations of how the public and workers benefited from the NLRA. Could you supply us with summaries of such cases? In order to prepare this material for presentation to the Committee it should be in our hands within the next ten days. We shall be most grateful for any assistance you can give us on this matter. Sincerely yours, CA: LG Special delivery. CAROLINE ABRAMS, [Postal Telegraph] WASHINGTON, D. C., May 22, 1939. TOWNE J. NYLANDER, NLRB 21st Region, 808 U. S. Post Office and Court House: Re memo eighteenth. Only carbons of correspondence received with photostats. Have therefore not transmitted anything to Nonpartisan League. Await your advices. ESTELLE S. FRANKFURTER, NLRB. SEPTEMBER 22, 1939. J. WARREN MADDEN, Chairman, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We wish to strongly urge the withdrawal of the notice of termination of service rendered to Mr. Maurice Howard of the Southern California Regional office of the National Labor Relations Board. Labor's Non Partisan League comprising both CIO and AFL unions, has closely observed the duties as a member of the Board, and is convinced that Mr. Howard is not only able and efficient, but that he has been outstanding in his impartial and complete enforcement of the National Labor Relations Act. We are convinced that his removal from the Board would not be in the interest of the service, and for these reasons, we recommend and request that he be retained in his present capacity. Sincerely, DON R. HEALEY Executive Secretary, Labor's Non-Partisan League of Los Angeles County. DRH/cr. Exhibit No. 1620 [Introduced into evidence in Volume 24, Part I, August 1, 1940] Documents Relating to the Activities of the 19th Regional Office, N. L. R. B. (Seattle) John J. Babe: E. J. REGIONAL PERSONNEL NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Yes, I think a 40,000 page record is sometimes necessary, so what? Seriously, this case is full of bugs for enforcement, and that judgment was passed not by me, but by Fahy and Watts. Shall I tell them you disagree? Ha, ha! Regards JOHN. FEBRUARY 1, 1939. Mr. BEN ANDERSON, 1207 Guardian Building, Portland, Oregon. Re: Montgomery Ward & Company, Case No. C-176. DEAR MR. ANDERSON: I have your letter dated January 23, relative to the above case, which I have not answered sooner as I have been out of town. Thank you for the information which you furnished me. It becomes necessary, however, also to know which of the men affected by the Board's order desired to return to their former employment at the Montgomery Ward plant. I noticed, for instance, that E. R. McLaughlin apparently enlisted in the United States Army and would consequently be unavailable for reemployment, apart from his claim for back wages. You indicated that the present whereabouts of Howard Pitzer are unknown and I take it that he would not be available for reinstatement. That there may be no confusion in your mind so far as any settlement of this matter is concerned any compromise on back pay owing to any of the men involved in the Board's order would inure to them whether or not, all of them took their old jobs back with the Company. You would then be good enough to inform me after consultation with these men which of them prefer to remain in their present employment as that will simplify to some extent the settlement of this matter. I note from the data you submit that some of these men appear to have been almost continuously employed since their discharge. It may well be that some of them may not desire to return to the Company. May I have this information at your earliest opportunity as I feel that there are distinct advantages to be gained by not allowing negotiations to lag. With this information I would attempt to determine how far the Company is willing to reinstate the men who presently desire reinstatement and what it is willing to do by way of back pay. Any settlement that I might be able to work out with this Company would be submitted through you to the Union for its approval. Thanking you for the information furnished and anticipating your reply, I am Very truly yours, jjb/mrc JOHN J. BABE, Attorney. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DEAR E. J. This is mainly hooey as the 8 (3) proof is so highly equivocal as to be suffering from galloping anaema. Regards. JOHN. JANUARY 19, 1939. Mr. STUART S. BALL, Secretary, Montgomery Ward & Company, Chicago, Illinois. Re: Montgomery Ward & Company, Case No. C-176. DEAR MR. BALL: I felt that while the matter of our recent conversation was still fresh in our minds I would write you in further discussion of subjects |